§ The result
2 points separate Draup and Personio.
Draup (Sourcing) edges Personio (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 40. Draup leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Personio leads 2, including Post-Market Monitoring. Post-Market Monitoring is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Personio — Draup 28, Personio 48, on a 12% weight — which is 76% of the weighted advantage Personio holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
Vendor profile
Personio
Personio is a European cloud HR platform for small and mid-sized companies that combines an HRIS with recruiting/ATS, time tracking, payroll and an AI assistant, and is adding agentic AI candidate sourcing and application screening through its 2026 acquisition of aurio.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Personio under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Draup | Personio |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Personio 48
2.4 weighted points to Personio
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Personio 40
1.6 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Personio 25
1.4 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Personio 48
1.2 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Personio 30
0.8 weighted points to Personio
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Personio 50
0.6 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Personio 52
0.3 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Personio.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Personio | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 25 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 30 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 48 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 40 (F) | +2 | +2.0 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Draup | Personio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Personio has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup and Personio sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Personio, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Personio last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next